| ||||
| ||||
| Moderated by: Joe Kelley |
|
||||||||||||||
| Jural Assembly | Rate Topic |
| Author | Post |
|---|
| Posted: Mon Mar 20th, 2017 12:21 pm |
|
1st Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
I started reading the material sent to me and before I continue reading that material I am writing this reply. I have a few links to send in this e-mail, as a starting point, from which to build a foundation concerning how my current viewpoint was built: a point from which movement forward in time and place proceeds. Before linking those foundations of information I want to reply quickly to the first two questions asked in the information I received from you. 1. Do you strongly consider yourselves as possessing collective sovereignty as one of the People of the California state (also referred to as the California Republic, named on the Bear flag of California)? The term "collective sovereignty" is not explained well enough (by anyone, ever, certainly not to me so far) to work in this case where a question is asked and an answer is demanded: assuming (not a good idea) that there is a desire to communicate accurately: a 2 way street so to speak (see Mathew 7:12) I can offer my foundation of knowledge concerning individual power to act according to individual power of will, within a world full of interacting individuals: http://pzacad.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/bright/warren/equcom.pdf "Responsibility must be Individual, or there is no responsibility at all." Josiah Warren. I can also offer my understanding of how collective power is exponentially greater than individual power: having first acknowledged the wisdom contained in the link, and the sentence above. Collective power gains exponentially due to at least 3 accurately measurable phenomenon: 1. Division of Labor, 2. Specialization, 3. Economies of Scale. An example is the voluntary mutual defense shared goal agreed to unanimously by individuals who are in command of their own power of will, and they decide to share the costs - work load - of reaching the goal of voluntary mutual defense. If someone (an individual) is very good at gathering information on threats facing people who agreed to defend each other, then that individual specializes in that labor - that work load - as a division of the whole work load, and included in the whole work load are demands such as specialists who specialize in tracking down known threats, so as to hold known threats to an accurate accounting through a known process by which everyone agrees to share as their tried and true process by which any individual agrees to undergo, when accusations are made concerning potential threats. So there are 2 specialized forms of labor that everyone (all individuals) cannot do themselves alone, and if all individuals had to do those tasks alone, the power of defense of everyone would be absent, zero, none, null, and evil people would flourish, grow more powerful, due to the absence of an effective power of defense. That is division of labor and specialization explained briefly. Economies of scale is understood when comparing relative collections of individuals working within accurately defined boundaries such as countries, counties, or states (also knowable as republics), and it is just as possible to compare one working federation (voluntary mutual defense association) with other working federations as to which power constitutes the greater economy of scale. Economies of scale can be seen this way: A farmer expends all the necessary costs required to grow corn. If the farmer grew one corn plant the farmer would value the one plant as the entire wealth created by the farmer in that accurately measured economy of scale. All costs invested on one side = all production produced by the investment on the other side. Land, equipment, labor, seeds, water, defensive costs = one corn plant. The farmer pre-plans, pre-meditates, and decides willfully, based upon an accurate measure of reality, to up-scale production from one corn plant to many corn plants: utilizing the concept of economies of scale. If the number of corn plants could be increased to infinity, on the other hand, the individual would not be utilizing economies of scale, as too much of a good thing is a contradiction in all but a few possible exceptions such as, for a possible example, there can never be too much liberty (assuming that there is a voluntarily agreed upon meaning to the word liberty). I hope that above helps in answering the question asked, and does so in a way that affords me my own command of my own - individual - human conscience. Do you strongly believe that the sovereignty-possessing American people whom freely inhabit California also constitute the body politic, and thus also constitute the political state, in fact? Yes, assuming that the meaning of the term "sovereignty-possessing American people" is shared as a common meaning, not two different meanings, one different meaning for you, and another different meaning for me. Links: 1. Credit River Money Decision (the download originates from my own webpage site): http://www.power-independence.com/forum/attachment.php?id=30 "Plaintiff admitted that it, in combination with the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, which are for all practical purposes, because of there interlocking activity and practices, and both being Banking Institutions Incorporated under the Laws of the United States, are in the Law to be treated as one and the same Bank, did create the entire 14,000.00 in money or credit upon its own books by bookkeeping entry. That this was the Consideration used to support the Note dated May 8, 1964 and the Mortgage of the same date. The money and credit first came into existence when they created it. Mr. Morgan admitted that no United States Law or Statute existed which gave him the right to do this. A lawful consideration must exist and be tendered to support the Note. Se Anheuser-Bush Brewing co. V. Emma Mason, 44 Minn. 318. The Jury found there was no lawful consideration and I agree. Only God can create something of value out of nothing. " The above trial by jury case was (as far as I know now) overturned by a counterfeit court (so called higher court) while the facts of the matter remain the facts of the matter as explained by the judge in that case, and as determined by the jury in that case. Thomas Paine concerning the criminal take-over of the fruits of victory (liberty earned when British invaders - criminals - where successfully defended against by people who formed a voluntary mutual defense association known as the United States of America): 2. To the Citizens of the United States: Thomas Paine http://thomaspaine.org/major-works/to-the-citizens-of-the-united-states.html "If ever America lose sight of this principle, she will no longer be the land of liberty. The father will become the assassin of the rights of the son, and his descendants be a race of slaves. As many thousands who were minors are grown up to manhood since the name of Federalist began, it became necessary, for their information, to go back and show the origin of the name, which is now no longer what it originally was; but it was the more necessary to do this, in order to bring forward, in the open face of day, the apostasy of those who first called themselves Federalists. To them it served as a cloak for treason, a mask for tyranny. Scarcely were they placed in the seat of power and office, than federalism was to be destroyed, and the representative system of government, the pride and glory of America, and the palladium of her liberties, was to be over- thrown and abolished. The next generation was not to be free. The son was to bend his neck beneath the father's foot, and live, deprived of his rights, under hereditary control. Among the men of this apostate description, is to be ranked the ex-President John Adams. It has been the political career of this man to begin with hypocrisy, proceed with arrogance, and finish in contempt. May such be the fate of all such characters." 3. Martin Luther King Jr. Conspiracy Murder Trial Transcripts. http://www.thekingcenter.org/sites/default/files/KING%20FAMILY%20TRIAL%20TRANSCRIPT.pdf Q. Let me ask you finally -- this has been a long road -- how you regard -- what is your explanation for the fact that there has been such little national media coverage of these -- of this trial and this evidence and this event here in this Memphis courtroom, which is the first trial ever to be able to produce evidence on this assassination -- what has happened here that Mighty Wurlitzer is not sounding but is in fact totally silent -- almost totally silent? A. Oh, but -- as we know, silence can be deafening. Disinformation is not only getting certain things to appear in print, it's also getting certain things not to appear in print. I mean, the first -- the first thing I would say as a way of explanation is the incredibly powerful effect of disinformation over a long period of time that I mentioned before. For 30 years the official line has been that James Earl Ray killed Martin Luther King and he did it all by himself. That's 30 years, not -- nothing like the short period when the line was that the Cubans raped the Angolan women. But for 30 years it's James Earl Ray killed Dr. King, did it all by himself. And when that is imprinted in the minds of the general public for 30 years, if somebody stood up and confessed and said: I did it. Ray didn't do it, I did it. Here's a movie. Here's a video showing me do it. 99 percent of the people wouldn't believe him because it just -- it just wouldn't click in the mind. It would just go right to -- it couldn't be. It's just a powerful psychological effect over 30 years of disinformation that's been imprinted on the brains of the -- the public. Something to the country couldn't -- couldn't be. 4. Bonding Code: http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/work-in-progress/bonding-code.htm 9.2 - Escalation Further: A law enforcement officer will lose his bond if he oppresses a citizen to the point of civil. rebellion when that citizen attempts to obtain redress of grievances (U.S. constitutional 1st so-called amendment). When a state, by and through its officials and agents, deprives a citizen of all of his remedies by the due process of law and deprives the citizen of the equal protection of the law, the state commits an act of mixed war against the citizen, and, by its behavior, the state declares war on the citizen. The citizen has the right to recognize this act by the publication of a solemn recognition of mixed war. This writing has the same force as the Declaration of Independence. It invokes the citizen's U.S. constitutional 9th and 10th so-called amend guarantees of the right to create an effective remedy where otherwise none exists. 5. Military Lien Right (solemn recognition of mixed war): http://sicknesshope.com/node/2033 In American history, the Declaration of Independence served the legal purpose of making a Solemn Recognition of Mixed War, which is a Notice of Military Lien Right, a warning of No Trespass, an assertion that any killing or taking of human life necessary for the protection of the legal remedies of the common citizen is being done, in the immediate situation described in the Solemn Recognition or Notice, not as murder, but as lethal self-defense of the commercial and social remedy against the cited domestic enemy or enemies. The Declaration of Independence is the legal model or format for the construction of the Solemn Recognition of Mixed War and the Notice of Military Lien Right. 6. Thomas Jefferson notes on the state of Virginia http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/jeffvir.asp The state is divided into counties. In every county are appointed magistrates, called justices of the peace, usually from eight to thirty or forty in number, in proportion to the size of the county, of the most discreet and honest inhabitants. They are nominated by their fellows, but commissioned by the governor, and act without reward. These magistrates have jurisdiction both criminal and civil. If the question before them be a question of law only, they decide on it themselves: but if it be of fact, or of fact and law combined, it must be referred to a jury. In the latter case, of a combination of law and fact, it is usual for the jurors to decide the fact, and to refer the law arising on it to the decision of the judges. But this division of the subject lies with their discretion only. And if the question relate to any point of public liberty, or if it be one of those in which the judges may be suspected of bias, the jury undertake to decide both law and fact. If they be mistaken, a decision against right, which is casual only, is less dangerous to the state, and less afflicting to the loser, than one which makes part of a regular and uniform system. In truth, it is better to toss up cross and pile in a cause, than to refer it to a judge whose mind is warped by any motive whatever, in that particular case. But the common sense of twelve honest men gives still a better chance of just decision, than the hazard of cross and pile. 7. Common law trial by jury case before the criminal take-over in 1789. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/1/236/ Here then, is the just line of discrimination: It is the duty of the Grand Jury to enquire into the nature and probable grounds of the charge; but it is the exclusive province of the Petty Jury, to hear and determine, with the assistance, and under the direction of the court, upon points of law, whether the Defendant is, or is not guilty, on the whole evidence, for, as well as against, him. 8. Identity theft of the perpetual union (Union States Assembly): http://unionstatesassembly.info/journals/summaries/Identity%20Theft%20of%20the%20perpetual%20Union.pdf Congress reviews the convention results and first votes to approve of the new law form. Congress then realizes they do not have the authority to approve of a new law form and the vote to approve is stricken out in the records (but not deleted). (See The Journals of the Continental Congress, Vol. 33. pages 540-542) 9. Legal Fiction warning (criminal take-over of common law due process) by Richard Henry Lee who was the 6th President of the United States of America in Congress Assembled: http://www.barefootsworld.net/antifederalist.html#afp41-43B The city, and all the places in which the union shall have this exclusive jurisdiction, will be immediately under one entire government, that of the federal head, and be no part of any state, and consequently no part of the United States. The inhabitants of the federal city and places, will be as much exempt from the laws and control of the state governments, as the people of Canada or Nova Scotia will be. Neither the laws of the states respecting taxes, the militia, crimes of property, will extend to them; nor is there a single stipulation in the constitution, that the inhabitants of this city, and these places, shall be governed by laws founded on principles of freedom. All questions, civil and criminal, arising on the laws of these places, which must be the laws of congress, must be decided in the federal courts; and also, all questions that may, by such judicial fictions as these courts may consider reasonable, be supposed to arise within this city, or any of these places, may be brought into these courts. By a very common legal fiction, any personal contract may be supposed to have been made in any place. A contract made in Georgia may be supposed to have been made in the federal city; the courts will admit the fiction. . . . Every suit in which an inhabitant of a federal district may be a party, of course may be instituted in the federal courts; also, every suit in which it may be alleged and not denied, that a party in it is an inhabitant of such a district; also, every suit to which a foreign state or subject, the union, a state, citizens of different states in fact, or by reasonable legal fictions, may be a party or parties. And thus, by means of bankrupt laws, federal districts, etc. , almost all judicial business, I apprehend may be carried into the federal courts, without essentially departing from the usual course of judicial proceedings. The courts in Great Britain have acquired their powers, and extended very greatly their jurisdictions by such fiction and suppositions as I have mentioned. The constitution, in these points, certainly involves in it principles, and almost hidden cases, which may unfold and in time exhibit consequences we hardly think of. The power of naturalization, when viewed in connection with the judicial powers and cases, is, in my mind, of very doubtful extent. By the constitution itself, the citizens of each state will be naturalized citizens of every state, to the general purposes of instituting suits, claiming the benefits of the laws, etc. 10. Trial by Jury, Lysander Spooner http://www.barefootsworld.net/trial01.html 7 This is done to prevent the government's constituting a jury of its own partisans or friends; in other words, to prevent the government's packing a jury, with a view to maintain its own laws, and accomplish its own purposes. It is supposed that, if twelve men be taken, by lot, from the mass of the people, without the possibility of any previous knowledge, choice, or selection of them, on the part of the government, the jury will be a fair epitome of "the country" at large, and not merely of the party or faction that sustain the measures of the government; that substantially all classes of opinions, prevailing among the people, will be represented in the jury; and especially that the opponents of the government, (if the government have any opponents,) will be represented there, as well as its friends; that the classes, who are oppressed by the laws of the government, (if any are thus oppressed,) will have their representatives in the jury, as well as those classes, who take sides with the oppressor - that is, with the government. It is fairly presumable that such a tribunal will agree to no conviction except such as substantially the whole country would agree to, if they were present, taking part in the trial. A trial by such a tribunal is, therefore, in effect, "a trial by the country." In its results it probably comes as near to a trial by the whole country, as any trial that it is practicable to have, without too great inconvenience and expense. And. as unanimity is required for a conviction, it follows that no one can be convicted, except for the violation of such laws as substantially the whole country wish to have maintained. The government can enforce none of its laws, (by punishing offenders, through the verdicts of juries,) except such as substantially the whole people wish to have enforced. The government, therefore, consistently with the trial by jury, can exercise no powers over the people, (or, what is the same thing, over the accused person, who represents the rights of the people,) except such as substantially the whole people of the country consent that it may exercise. In such a trial, therefore, "the country," or the people, judge of and determine their own liberties against the government, instead of the government's judging of and determining its own powers over the people. 11. First Congress a.: http://teachingamericanhistory.org/ratification/elliot/vol1/approaches/ On the same day, Congress unanimously resolved, “that the respective colonies are entitled to the common law of England, and more especially to the great and inestimable privilege of being tried by their peers of the vicinage according to the course of that law.” They further resolved, “that they were entitled to the benefit of such of the English statutes as existed at the time of their colonization, and which they have, by experience, respectively found to be applicable to their several and local circumstances.” They also resolved, that their ancestors, at the time of their immigration, were “entitled to all the rights, liberties, and immunities, of free and natural-born subjects within the realms of England.” First Congress b.: That the question was not whether, by a declaration of independence, we should make ourselves what we are not; but whether we should declare a fact which already exists: That, as to the people or Parliament of England, we had always been independent of them, their restraints on our trade deriving efficacy from our acquiescence only, and not from any rights they possessed of imposing them; and that, so far, our connection had been federal only, and was now dissolved by the commencement of hostilities: That, as to the king, we had been bound to him by allegiance, but that this bond was now dissolved by his assent to the late act of Parliament, by which he declares us out of his protection, and by his levying war on us a fact which had long ago proved us out of his protection, it being a certain position in law, that allegiance and protection are reciprocal, the one ceasing when the other is withdrawn: First Congress c.: The pusillanimous idea that we had friends in England worth keeping terms with still haunted the minds of many. For this reason, those passages which conveyed censures on the people of England were struck out, lest they should give them offence. The clause, too, reprobating the enslaving the inhabitants of Africa, was struck out in complaisance to South Carolina and Georgia, who had never attempted to restrain the importation of slaves, and who, on the contrary, still wished to continue it. Our northern brethren also, I believe felt a little tender under those censures; for, though their people had very few slaves themselves, yet they had been pretty considerable carriers of them to others. 12. Original Draft Declaration of Independence: https://jeffersonpapers.princeton.edu/selected-documents/jefferson%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%9Coriginal-rough-draught%E2%80%9D-declaration-independence-0 he has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it’s most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce:[11] and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another. 13. Articles of Confederation: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/artconf.asp Freedom of speech and debate in Congress shall not be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Congress, and the members of Congress shall be protected in their persons from arrests or imprisonments, during the time of their going to and from, and attendence on Congress, except for treason, felony, or breach of the peace. Summary: As with today, whereby those in criminal power (under the color of law) are demonstrably guilty of crimes against nature itself (now called human trafficking) and the criminally powerful (under the color of law) are willing (with malice aforethought) to cover each other's crimes up, and to thereby usurp Rule of Law (due process, or the common law with trial by the country, in courts of conscience, known as trial by jury), to counterfeit Rule of Law, with a criminal version: ubiquitous lawlessness. The records clearly show that Slavery (not just African slavery, for the Irish where similarly enslaved) was criminal and subject to due process, for the mutual defense of all, as a consequence of victory over the British by defenders of Liberty. The crimes collectively known as slavery were on the way out, as the defenders defended against such crimes, and slavery includes the crime known as debt slavery, which is a subject I did not elaborate on (see the final link below on Shays's Rebellion) yet. The conspirators (criminals) who took over the voluntary mutual defense association (federation) turned the course of the people in this country from a course where slavery (including debt slavery, Irish slavery, and African slavery) was clearly against the law, and therefore on the way out of existence, banished, from the land of the free: through trial by jury, common law, due process. The conspirators (criminals) who took over the voluntary mutual defense association (federation) turned the course of the people in this country toward "legalized, subsidized," brutal taxed funded enslavement of all by all: ubiquitous lawlessness. The did so by way of deception: legal fiction. Joe This is very important: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QSwmvMr9cY
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Mar 29th, 2017 12:46 am |
|
2nd Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
I attended a conference call. I was prepared for a free flow of useful information. A gate keeper named "frank" was responding to my text messages, and when he claimed that my morality was entertaining I saw the black hat, evil, agent provocateur infecting what might have been a useful, moral, defensive, collective, effort. I don't think this group can proceed while it is held back with such enormous costs created by evil people.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sat May 6th, 2017 10:50 am |
|
3rd Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Letter sent to Jural Assembly 5-6-2017: Hi, this is Joe Kelley writing to you concerning subjects that matter, such as might be the meaning intended when employing the term subject matter jurisdiction. I picked up on a term used by you in the previous group discussion session last Tuesday (5-2-17) and I found the following information concerning the term Clearfield Doctrine: https://anticorruptionsociety.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/clearfield-doctrine.pdf "What the Clearfield Doctrine is saying is that when private commercial paper is used by corporate government, then government loses its sovereignty status and becomes no different than a mere private corporation." From my view the above can be perceived from at least 2 opposing foundations of knowledge. 1. The people are themselves the source of moral conscience, judgment, and therefore law, and therefore any segment of the whole people charged with any work for the whole people are specifically not the source of moral conscience, judgment, and therefore law. 2. The people as a whole are under the control of a segment of the population whereby those in control of the whole people claim to be (and enforce their claim by any means possible) the source of moral conscience, judgment, and therefore the law. From those 2 foundations above the information concerning the Clearfield Doctrine can be understood in at least 2 opposing ways. 1. From the people as their own law foundation (liberty); that foundation can look at the Clearfield Doctrine as further inculpatory evidence proving the case that the criminals have taken over, and the criminals are claiming that some of their own number (a segment of the criminal population ) have counterfeited the counterfeit government, turning the counterfeit government (rule by criminals) into a more obvious counterfeit government (rule by criminals), as exemplified by this case where counterfeit money is claimed by the criminals as their exclusive power to enforce their criminal orders. In other words this case proves that some of the criminals are ratting on some other criminals concerning a specific crime that could be labelled with a label that works to accurately identify the specific crime in this case: a label such as Mixed War, or Treason, or Central Banking Fraud Under the Color of Law. 2. From the Special Interest Group Elite Controllers of the Whole People foundation (despotism); that foundation can look at the Clearfield Doctrine as a means by which the victims (the whole people minus the dominant criminal group, but caution is advised here, see for example Proverbs 1:8-19 concerning what can be called the blowback effect) are fooled yet again, as the deception concerning the criminal take-over of government is again covered up as some of the criminals rat on (throw under the bus) some of the other criminals within the dominant criminal group. Meanwhile the criminal hierarchy remains intact, as the people are still made to believe that this Special Interest Group constitutes the source of moral conscience, judgment, and thereby law. Since the last open discussion I've been working further on the Essay on Trial by Jury by Lysander Spooner here: http://www.power-independence.com/forum/view_topic.php?id=1310&forum_id=33 Eventually the study will move to the evidence proving (caught red handed) the criminal take-over, in ways that constitute confessions, or written documentation of the criminal acts perpetrated by the criminals themselves, while they were in the commission of that crime. The principles should be enough for any living being in possession of moral conscience, but that assumes that the virus of disinformation has not taken control of the living being formerly in possession of moral conscience. An example is found here: http://unionstatesassembly.info/journals/summaries/Sedition%20and%20Treason%20in%20the%20Confederation%202015-10-01.pdf Example:___________________________quote Make no mistake, Congress is clearly committing sedition against the current confederation at this point. Let us examine each paragraph. The first paragraph acknowledges that revisions need to be made to the current constitution (the Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union) because there are certain unworkable conditions in governing. In February of 1787, Congress authorizes a Convention of the States for the “sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation, and reporting to Congress and the several legislatures, such alterations and provisions therein, as should when agreed to in Congress, and be confirmed by the States, render the federal Constitution adequate to the exigencies of Government, and the preservation of the Union.” This follows the law of the land based on Article 13. The Convention were to report their results to Congress, Congress would debate and amend such results, then agree to such, and then pass them on to the States for their unanimous approval. In the second paragraph, Congress acknowledges that only 12 states were present, not 13, and even though being unanimous of the 12, the Convention DID NOT DO WHAT THEY WERE TASKED TO DO, AND PRESENTED TO CONGRESS NOT ANY ALTERATIONS OF THE CURRENT CONSTITUTION BUT A SYSTEM THAT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT, in the following words “. . . for their Assent and ratification which constitution appears to be intended as an entire system in itself, and not as any part of, or alteration in the Articles of Confederation; to alterations in which Articles, the deliberations and powers of Congress are, in this Case, constitutionally confined, and whereas Congress cannot with propriety proceed to examine and alter the said Constitution proposed, unless it be with a view so essentially to change the principles and forms of it, as to make it an additional part in the said Confederation . . .” End________________________quote I go one step further (in my study, it is not me constructing conspiracy theory (falsehood), it is factual, demonstrable, knowledge) in pointing out that a County government, a State government, and even a Federal Union of State governments, do not constitute "the law of the land," if those people charged with those duties do not recognized, acknowledge, and follow the law of the land trial by jury process, whereby the people themselves can veto, or consent to, any claims of authority by anyone, anywhere, including presidents, governors, sheriffs, lawyers, judges, and corporate officers. Joe
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Current time is 10:53 am | |
| Power Independence > Networking > Expanding Connectivity > Jural Assembly | Top |
